OS9 UG and Standards group

The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me thatthey see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However – IF IFOUND ONE AND IT TURNS OUT OK, the UG would consider accepting it as an organof the Users group later. When I was less than accepting of this proposal,well, it seems to have upset yet another member of the BOD. So, I’m asking the members of theOS9 community to look at this situation, and tell me if they would accept sucha proposal – that one person or group should do the work of setting up aorganization to benefit all, then turn it over to the group that SHOULD be helping to get the job done inthe first place after they put no effort into it. Frankly, I see noimprovement in this group. They tell me – ‘give us time, give us a chance‘ but I’ve offered this group a chance to start an activity that many of thesmall developers tell me they see as a boon to all and offer to donate my timein a cooperative venture, and get told to do it myself and give it to themlater? Am I missing something here?? What do you think??

22 comments to OS9 UG and Standards group

> The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me that > they see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However -

This is a very critical time for the OS9 User’s Group, and I can tellyou there are many many things on the BOD’s minds. We had an on-linemeeting here last night and many many topics were discussed, and themeeting lasted for quite a while. (I’m not speaking from a BODperspective, as I’m not part of the BOD, but rather the MOTD editor.)Frankly, a standard’s group is something that the OS-9 User’s Group isnot ready to get involved with because of the many other critical areasit has to concentrate on in restarting the OS-9 User’s Group.

Personally, I would love to see a standards group formed someday… itwould be a boon to all.

I’ll be printing your article in the next issue. Why don’t you ask the UGto appoint YOU as head of the “standards committee” and then you can go onyour merry way… at least with the groups blessing, and you can probablyget a little more interest since you will at least have the endorsement of theUG. The few workers in the group do have their hands full, but I can’t seewhy they wouldn’t at least give you an endorsement!

I’m not speaking for the UG or the BOD but I will speak as 1 of 5 Director’s and try to state clearly my position regarding your desire for a broad-based standards committee.

I have a rather strict definition of ‘standard’. Most of the things you appear to be alluding to fall, at best, in the category of practices – not standards. You’ve mentioned only one subject which might qualify as a standard; i.e., defining certain signals. But you haven’t provided any examples of where or why this is needed. Also, who else in the industry agrees that this is a problem which needs to be addressed or are you addressing a problem peculiar to your Company’s hardware/software. I don’t know. I suggest you define the problem you perceive clearly in your mind first. Then discuss the specifics with representatives of other Companies in the OS-9 community; i.e., OEMs, VARs, programmers and other interested parties. You will also have to consider possible backward compatibility problems. If you can get a concensus from them that this is indeed a problem, prepare and submit a proposal to the UG outlining the problem, what the objec- tive is and a list of experts in the specific area willing to serve on that committee. I will certainly look favorably on such a proposal.

The rest of the subjects you mentioned appear to fall in the category of practices or information but not as a standard. For example, you mentioned preparing a ‘library’ that would include many functions (beyond MW’s I assume) to make it easier for programmers. I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else doing this. But I don’t see where UG endorsement or sponsorship is necessary for this. This ‘library’ could be submitted to the existing UG library or otherwise made available to programmers. However, I’d think that if the ‘library’ is truly worthwhile and will be supported, you’d want to sell it to programmers. Anyway, I don’t see that making such a ‘library’ a ‘standard’ will necessarily benefit the community. Most experienced C programmers already have their own libraries which they would probably prefer to use. But again, you may always discuss this with others as I described above and if there is a consesus that a standard library of the type you propose is necessary, submit a proposal to the UG. I will listen.

David, I’d suggest you read the Constitution of the UG. Among the primary objectives are the expansion of the UG by bringing in industrial members and new users as well as expanding support for existing members. You may have some excellent ideas consistant with these objectives but you will have to define and present these ideas more clearly than you have. You will have to do your homework first. And I will not vote for a committee with nebulous objectives and broad powers regardless of who heads it. I will favor a separate committee to address each problem/objective. BTW, if you look into how ANSII or the IEEE does this, I think you’ll find the procedure they follow is similar to what I’m asking for; i.e., they do not initiate such committees. Proposals are presented to them by an informal group. Then, after credentials and many other factors are examined, they may endorse the establishment of a committee to prepare ‘draft specifications’ under their ‘umbrella’.

Please remember that for a standard to be credible, it must be accepted by the entire community – Industrial, VARs, programmers, users, etc. Calling something a standard does not make it so. UG endorsement of a standard without the participation and agreement of all interested parties, would only serve to discredit the UG.

I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developingstandards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included)we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems.all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group..What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official usersgroup just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp whenthere is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or fromthe industrial users (at all)..

The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find outas much as they can about what the users need, and what they would liketo do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

> I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developing > standards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included) > we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems > .all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

The UG is comprised only of volunteers; that includes the officers, directors, and people like the MOTD Editor and the Librarian. No one is paid or compen- sated for their time or expenses nor are there any paid employees. The only resources (assets if you will) the UG has are its name and membership.

The simple fact we might have a problem, doesn’t mean we need a standard. Standards are useful only if all parties concerned agree that there is a problem, participate in their preparation, agree to them and follow them.

> The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group.. > What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official users > group just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp when > there is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or from > the industrial users (at all)..

What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if the UG adopts standards without all interested parties being involved. Worse, what if it is a standard contrary to what they have been doing.

In all cases, it will have to be the interested parties that will do the work. The question is whether the UG will endorse the work. There are several steps involved whether the UG is involved or not. Let’s look at how most standards committees have been formed in the past.

Typically, someone will encounter a problem. Most people will contact their local expert to get a solution. If no solution can be found, several other people are contacted. (Along the way, the problem is further defined.) Finally, leading experts will be contacted. Most often, the ‘problem’ will have been resolved along the way. Occassionally, there is no satisfactory resolution and the people involved will form an informal committee with the intent of preparing a standard. They will contact an organization like the IEEE, ANSII, ISO, etc. (but it could be the OS-9 Users Group as well if the subject is applicable). These organizations have certain requirements before they will formally ‘adopt’ a committee; i.e., statement of the problem(s), why they are problem(s), what experts (including their credentials) concur that this is a problem and the names of the Companies and/or individuals who will serve on the committee. If all of the requirements of the standards organization are met, they will issue the committee a ‘charter’ which will among other things, define the scope of their work and the expected end result (there are many other provisions but they’re not important for this example). At this point, a working committee will be formed which will do the actual work of preparing the specifications which can later be formalized as a standard. During the preparation of the specification, ‘draft specifi- cations’ are often circulated for review. Interested parties send in their comments and the specification is revised. This continues until the differences are resolved. At this point the specification becomes a standard and the committee is dissolved having completed its work.

Even when one of the large standards organizations sponsors the effort, it is the people who called for forming the committee who usually do most of the work. The sponsoring organization provides no help – indeed, in most cases, they may not even understand the work being done by its various committees

Should the UG do things differently? Granted, being small, we do not need all the paper work the larger organizations require but I think the same requirements should hold. If the UG is be responsible, professional and gain the respect of the entire OS-9 community, can it do any different?

> The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find out > as much as they can about what the users need, and what they would like > to do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

I agree with you that we must find out what the membership needs and wants. My preference is for a questionaire sent to members (maybe part of the MOTD?) every year. I can bring this up at the next BOD meeting but I’d suggest you contact Carl Boll, UG President (CBJ on Delphi), directly and inform him of your needs.

As to getting information to those working on standards, if the UG follows a procedure similar to what I outlined above, every interested party will have the opportunity to review the specification being prepared and present their views.

> … Why don’t you ask the UG to appoint YOU as head of the “standards > committee” and then you can go on your merry way… at least with the > groups blessing, and you can probably get a little more interest since > you will at least have the endorsement of the UG. The few workers in the > group do have their hands full, but I can’t see why they wouldn’t at least > give you an endorsement!

First, I’d like to suggest you look up the definition of the word ‘standard’ in the dictionary and then find out what it means and how it is used in industry.

As to your statement ‘and then you can go on your merry way…’, absolutely not. Not even the President of the UG can go his ‘merry way’ and most fortunately, (as he demonstrated at our first BOD meeting) Carl does not wish to do so. Rather, he has demonostrated a very stong dedication to guide the UG to a position where membership in the UG will be attractive to all members of the OS-9 community and where the UG will serve the community as a whole. I should add that the other members of the BOD demonstrated a similar dedication.

I’m not singleing out David Graham – I have nothing against him. (But, he is the one raising the issue.) However, I think to give him or anyone carte blanche to act in the name of and/or under the mantle of the OS-9 User Group is inappropriate. Further, he has not made such a request to the UG or the BOD. Nor, does he know how the BOD will respond to such a request. (However, he does know my position but I’m only 1 of 5 directors.) David is demonstra- ting a great deal of enthusiasm. But rather than use a shot-gun approach, I’d like to see him zero in on a specific issue and follow through on that. If he can demonstrate that the issue is indeed a problem, can convince other interested parties to appoint competent persons to serve on such a committee, I don’t think he’ll have any problem getting the endorsement and full support from the BOD – he will get support from me.

Actually Frank, that is exactly what I asked for. I simply beleive that the‘standards organization’ belongs under the Users Group. However, the membersof the BOD who are aware and have contacted me, seem to think otherwise. Ifigure, if I gotta do the work before I can have an endorsement, why bother with the endorsement. See,the OS9 UG endorsement SHOULD make the job a liettle easier. So, if I gotta doit the hard way, why involve the UG after the hard part is done?

Ed, I like the shotgun analogy you used. Perhaps this can allow me to getmy point accross to you. If you want to go hunting , in a group (in this casea necessity), you do not just say, let’s hunt quail. You set out a plan thatavoids wasted effort, and injuries to the hunters. And it you are hunting forsurvival purposes, you don’t restrict yourself to quail. (Ignoring the problem of gameregulations, though I don’t intend to ignore the law in real worldapplications). So, committing myself to fixing one problem now is notnecessarily soemthing I want to do. Besides, I want this group to be free to take on additional problems as they arise.However, if I had to attack one problem first, it would be the lack ofstandards for graphics format handling libraries for all OSK machines. Iwould assemble a group of GWindows, KWindows, MM/1 , System IV and V programmers (and other machines – ifpossible), and work on assembling standards for and working examples of alibarary that would allow use of PCX, VEF, GIF, TIFF, PBM and other populargraphics file formats accross(across) all as many platforms as possible using the same syntax. But, Iwould not wait until this project was done to start on a committee for DBM tooldevelopment. Now, I realize that using this group for library developmentmight offend some, but Isee this as an essential part of a shared plan to revitalize our market place.And this group (or these groups) would and rightfully should be restricted fromdeveloping entire applications, that should be undertaken only by commercialorganizations, though licensing of the commonly developed library for a minimal fee would be usedto finance further shared development projects, such as QIC readers ifpossible.

I think there should be 2 standards commitees, 1 for OSk, and 1 for OS-9or at least 2 divisions under the standards commitee, I would like toget the OS-9/6809 patch problem fixed up, then maybe “printercap” file,and a file to control basic graphics functions, if possible, or sometype system to have 1 binary (for OSk, though it would work with OS-9 too)work with the various windowing systems…

I hear (and have heard) everything you’re saying. But, I don’t think you’re hearing me. I will try to be as clear as possible. There is no intent in what I’m about to say to insult or otherwise discredit you or anyone else. Again, I’m not speaking for the UG or the BOD – only myself.

One of the primary objectives of the UG is to bring in industrial, educational and other professional users; without their participation and support, I don’t believe the UG can have much of a future. This objective transcends national boundaries – we want participation and support from all users throughout the world. Additionally, we want to spread the word about OS-9. I’d like to see the latter effort coordinated with MW. I don’t believe an effective PR campaign can be implemented without the financial support the industrial market can provide.

Another objective is to provide support for OS-9 Users. This will include all OS-9 users – not just those who are members, or are on this forum, or on FIDO or own MM/1s. This should include the user with the expensive, super 68040 VME system as well as the CoCo and everything in between. And, it includes OS-9000.

(Still another objective is the support of OS-9/6809, the CoCo Users but I don’t think that is part of this discussion.)

One of the biggest problems the UG has is to restore credibility with MW (does effect UG efforts re OS-9/6809) and the industrial, educational, professional and other members of the _entire_ OS-9 community and bring them in as active and supporting members. I’ll repeat what I said before. IMO, without their participation and support, I don’t believe the UG has much of a future.

The above represents the factors I’ll consider when discussing UG policies including the establishment of committees.

I believe I’m being consistent when I object to any one person or any one committee having broad powers under the mantle of the OS-9 Users Group. I want to be certain that whatever work is done, is done by a broad representa- tion of the OS-9 Community by qualified and experienced people, that the problem being addressed is a real problem common to the entire community and that the final results will be meaningful, accepted by and available to the _entire_ community thereby reflecting positively on the UG. Depending on the problem, it may that MW will resolve the issue. Above all, any work done under the mantle of the OS-9 Users Group should not be for the benefit of an individual, Company or ‘class’ of user. Benefits must accrue to and be available to all.

Let’s examine a few of your comments - > However, if I had to attack one problem first, it would be the lack of > standards for graphics format handling libraries for all OSK machines. I > would assemble a group of GWindows, KWindows, MM/1 , System IV and V > programmers (and other machines – if possible), and work on assembling > standards for and working examples of a libarary that would allow use of > PCX, VEF, GIF, TIFF, PBM and other popular graphics file formats accross > (across) all as many platforms as possible using the same syntax.

First, let me comment that when this was proposed 3 or 4 years ago, I received a message, that I (DELMAR) should conform to MM/1 standards; that in 1 or 2 years there would be between 5000 and 10000 MM/1s out there and the SYSTEM IV and other hardware would _have_ to conform to K-Windows and other MM/1 standards. Wonder what happened? (OK, I got my lick in.)

For native mode use, both the SYSTEM IV and SYSTEM V computers already have a gfx library based on Microsoft Quick C. Many of my customers have written software using these libraries. What benefit would it be to me or my custo- mers to change. Isn’t it a little late?

As to G-WINDOWS, any changes would have to be made and approved by GESPAC. They own and control G-WINDOWS. Have you talked to them? Considering the number of copies of G-WINDOWS sold and the number of platforms it has been ported to, I, personally, see no valid reason to change G-WINDOWS to conform with some standard you might prefer (K-Windows?) unless you can present a very compelling case.

I see 2 alternatives for you. The first is for you to arrange to port K- Windows to all the other platforms, convince the other programmers, users and OEM’s to use it and prove that it is better than what they have; the second is for you to port G-WINDOWS to the MM/1. (Unless I get another 10 orders in the next 2 weeks, I will not be doing a port of G-WINDOWS to the MM/1.) The latter option may not be such a bad idea – it would bring the MM/1 into the mainstream.

As to the gfx file formats, several already exist for the SYSTEM IV/V, as well as for G-WINDOWS. I am working on bringing some of the other gfx formats to G-WINDOWS. Much of this has been done with my time, effort and expense. Several SYSTEM VI/V owners have contributed such programs. Or, I paid for them when I purchased the G-WINDOWS Port Pack and license. It appears to me that you want these for the MM/1 but are unwilling to expend the effort/funds to get them. Certainly, you may assemble a team to write these for the MM/1 but since I fail to see what benefits I or OEMs, VARs and other non-MM/1 users will receive, why should the UG sponsor such an effort?

> But, I would not wait until this project was done to start on a committee > for DBM tool development.

Don’t we already have several DBMS? Starting at $75, an older version of the SCULPTOR development pacakge is available. Next we have DATADEX written by Steve Carville. For a simple database, it is surprisingly powerful and versatile. Then, I believe IMS is available for a few hundred dollars. I think this is similar to DBase 3. At the upper end we have SCULPTOR again. Also, I think there are a couple of PD DBMS in the Database here and/or on CIS. Why should the UG sponsor an effort that would compete with already available commercial software? I hope we can get MPD (SCULPTOR) and whoever is putting out IMS to join the UG. Do you think they will join if the UG sponsors and supports others to compete with them? This is just this type of action that I believe must be avoided by the UG.

> … but I see this as an essential part of a shared plan to revitalize our > market place.

Perhaps you can share your ideas with the UG. At the BOD meeting we grappled with this problem. It is going to take a great deal of time and effort to effectively address it. If you have a workable plan, I can assure you the UG BOD will welcome it.

David, it appears to me (from the ideas you’ve presented) that you are asking for sponsorship for a committee that will benefit you, your Company and the MM/1. I don’t see where you’ve identified and addressed problems the main- stream OS-9 community may have. Nor do you appear to want to make a concerted effort to involve them to determine if your perception of problems are in fact problems and involve them in solving them – particularly if a standard is required. In several previous messages, you intimated you would solve industry’s problems for them by means of your committee but do you know what their problems are? How can you do this without involving them?

You complain certain members of the BOD (including me) don’t want to help but want the credit. Perhaps the best way of stating it is if work done under the UG mantle benefits the entire OS-9 community, then the UG and its membership will benefit. If the entire OS-9 community doesn’t b
enefit, we can expect criticism which will be detrimental to the UG. As I see it, the only help the UG, as an organization, can give you is a mantle of legitimacy by sponsoring your committee. If this mantle is provided, how do I, as a Director, know your efforts will reflect positively on the UG?

So long as I’m a Director of the UG, I will not vote to give you, or anyone, the kind of broad authority you want to establish standards you decide are necesary under the auspices of the UG. I will judge each request on its merits; i.e., is the problem one that can only be resolved by a standard, do experts in the field (including MW) concur, what are the credentials of those serving on the committee, who will comprise the working committee, what assurance is there that the OEMs, VARs, programmers, etc. comply with such a standard and how will it benefit the OS-9 community as a whole. I don’t believe it is up to the UG to do the preliminary work. Rather, I believe we should follow the practices of other organizations regarding standards; i.e., the interested party(s) do their homework and present a package to the UG for consideration. If the information provided substantiates the need, approval will most certainly be given and the committee can proceed with the work under the auspices of the UG.

The UG is committed to supporting OS-9/6809. We have a VP designated with that responsibility but he hasn’t been on the job very long – he’s just getting his feet wet. He will probably need the help of others to resolve the patch and other problems.

The UG is taking the first step to re-establish our credibility with MW. This will be followed, I hope, with the necessary steps to acquire the rights to the 6809 code from MW and, with their help, the gfx code from Tandy.

If the UG is successful in its effort to obtain OS-9/6809 rights, the UG will be able to support the code since MW has stopped supporting it and there should be no conflicts.

I agree Ed, and that is what I am saying, the UG shouldnt make thestandards, we should, but those standards should be accepted by all (most?)of the OS-9 world. Not just the CoCoers, not just those with the MM/1,Kix’s or System IV’s, and not just the industrial users. It should be allof us. And only the UG can really be called “all” of us, thus far anyway.If the UG put out a poll, asked its users what they want, and then we allget on the horn to the companies, and get in contact with the industrialusers, and the standard we make has to be more than “ok, I can live with that”it has to be “OK! Thats and idea! THAT would make life easier for aofus”…

that is the kind of standards we need to make, and the only way a groupof us will be able to find out with the industrial users are doing, andwhat the rest of the OS-9 world is doing is with help from the UG..and thathelp has to come before work is even started…with a poll. find outwhat the users want, and what the programmers want..and lets do it..I see alot of talk. Zero action. At least Dave is trying to get somethingdone here..I am not trying to knock you or the UG, I just think theOS-9 community for a long time has talked about how our OS is better thaneveryone elses, and how we talked about doing this, and that, and whatwe need..but very few times has anyone DONE anything..cant we change that?At least 1 time out of 100.

Give me a list of what patches people use most. and Say, 10 people tohelp me, and will put helluva effort into getting the patch problemfixed up the best we can.. (until we get source for os-9/6809)..

who can give me a list of what patches are used most? the UG. Poll theusers. Now, I just need some help.

Ed, I guess what I should do is submit the list of patches I currently sell tothe UG as a “recommendation” of patches for a “standard” OS-9/CoCo system.They ARE the most useful and used patches. It wouldn’t deteriorate the valueof my product, as I have them all combined and won’t be contributing theauto-install program.. which is the major attraction in the case of thecommercial compilation. Who would I submit this to? I must also pointout that Rick Ulland did most of the patch compilations also…

I tend to agree with what you said but I don;t think we need to get our “lick”in. That tends to turn people off. I don’t think the UG needs that right now.I’m also getting the impression from some individuals’ comments that K-Windowsusers will be left out in the cold. I hope that it will be supported in somemanner until us K-Window users finally get G-Windows or whatever is there atthe time. (Personlly, I can’t afford it right now…..no offense or anything,but my budget is very tight at this time. That is why I haven’t ordered it.)Maybe the UG could poll users, both industrial and personal, and see whatturns up. I know there are ideas and practices out there that I don’t knowabout (grin).

> I see 2 alternatives for you. The first is for you to arrange to port > K- Windows to all the other platforms, convince the other programmers, > users and OEM’s to use it and prove that it is better than what they have; > the second is for you to port G-WINDOWS to the MM/1. (Unless I get > another 10 orders in the next 2 weeks, I will not be doing a port of > G-WINDOWS to the MM/1.) The latter option may not be such a bad idea – it > would bring the MM/1 into the mainstream.

Sigh. I do hope that more orders are forthcoming. But if the MM/1 portdoesn’t happen, I will probably use the money I had committed for G-Windowsand the Developer’s Pak to buy a bigger hard drive so that I can installLinux on my OS-9000 box.

> I’m also getting the impression from some individuals’ comments that > K-Windows users will be left out in the cold. I hope that it will be > supported in some manner until us K-Window users finally get

K-Windows is receiving more support now than G-Windows (simply based onprograms that are readily available in databases, BBS’s, and byvendors), so I don’t think we’ll be left out in the cold… we just haveto realize we’re not the only one’s running OS-9, which I think issometimes forgotten.

To do the port of G-WINDOWS, I need 20 confirmed orders @ $200.00. Payment with order. Payment may be by check or credit card. VISA, AMEX, MC, Discover and RS are acceptable. CC will not be processed nor will checks be deposited until I have 20 orders. Count stands at 10 confirmed orders.

It will probably take me about 2 to 3 months to do the port. I can’t spend full-time at it – I do have other customer obligations to take care of, too.